The court filings totalled 127 pages and nearly 30,000 words.
They provided the most-detailed look to date of the University of Minnesota Duluth's defense in a high-profile federal discrimination lawsuit brought by three former women's sports coaches.
And now a judge says he won't consider any of it.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle on Friday threw out the motions brought by UMD seeking summary judgement in the lawsuit filed by former women's hockey coach Shannon Miller, former softball coach Jen Banford and former women's basketball coach Annette Wiles.
Kyle said university attorneys "clearly violated" rules of civil procedure for the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, circumventing length limits by filing separate motions for each plaintiff.
Local court rules require that summary judgment motions be limited to one brief of 12,000 words - a requirement that the judge said university attorneys "evaded."
"The Court perceives nothing so unique or complex about this case as to require such extensive submissions," the judge wrote. "But regardless, if the University had viewed the issues as needing significant (and separate) briefing, it could have - and should have - requested leave of the court in advance to do so."
The motions, first reported by the News Tribune last week, asked the judge to forgo a trial and decide the case in the university's favor. The attorneys argued that Miller's December 2014 non-renewal was triggered by declining performance and a high salary, and that Banford and Wiles left their positions voluntarily.
While the order marks a small setback for the university, the judge said he would allow attorneys to file a new, condensed memorandum on the summary judgment motion.
Tim Pramas, an attorney in the University of Minnesota's Office of General Counsel, said the new brief will be filed by May 12, but the substance of UMD's arguments will not change.
"We remain confident that, based on the facts and law presented in our briefs, the University has a strong summary judgment motion," Pramas said in an email. "We will comply with the Court's instructions to submit a revised combined single legal memorandum."
The plaintiffs' attorneys had taken issue with the length of UMD's filings, citing the fact that the three women filed a joint complaint and noting that the court has not separated their claims into individual cases.
UMD has notified the court that it intends to bring a motion to have a separate trial for each plaintiff, but attorneys have yet to submit the actual motion or receive a ruling from the judge.
"I think the judge was recognizing that, at this point, there's one case," said Dan Siegel, an attorney for the coaches. "And it appears that UMD was overreaching to think they could file three motions in the same case that address overlapping issues."
Miller said her attorneys plan to challenge the university's arguments.
In an interview Tuesday, she defended her performance - noting she had just one losing season in 15 years before her non-renewal - and reiterated her claims of inequality in funding and resources of women's sports at the school.
Miller said her non-renewal did not happen as described by the school, and said she would be vindicated at trial.
"There are blatant lies in there," she said of UMD's arguments. "The comment about years of declining success and academic performance, that's a blatant lie. Obviously, all you have to do is look at my record."
The plaintiffs' attorneys are expected to submit a written response to the court by June 2. In wake of the judge's order, a hearing next month on the summary judgment motion has been postponed.
The judge still plans to hear other motions - including the one to separate the trials - on May 25 in Duluth. A settlement conference also has been scheduled for July.
A trial date has not been set, but Kyle reiterated to attorneys that they should be prepared to go before a jury as soon as Sept. 1.